Moving Beyond the Common Law Objection to Structured Proportionality

Q3 Social Sciences Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1177/0067205X20981512
Anne Carter
{"title":"Moving Beyond the Common Law Objection to Structured Proportionality","authors":"Anne Carter","doi":"10.1177/0067205X20981512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the claim that the adoption of structured proportionality testing in Australian constitutional review is ill-suited to Australia’s common law tradition. That objection has been stated by some members of the High Court and scholars, though the precise basis of the objection has not been clearly articulated. This article clarifies and evaluates this objection, setting out a number of distinct concerns which emerge from the reasoning of the minority justices. Ultimately, the article argues that the objection has been too starkly cast and that Australia’s common law tradition does not present an insurmountable obstacle to the introduction of proportionality testing in constitutional review.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"49 1","pages":"73 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X20981512","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20981512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the claim that the adoption of structured proportionality testing in Australian constitutional review is ill-suited to Australia’s common law tradition. That objection has been stated by some members of the High Court and scholars, though the precise basis of the objection has not been clearly articulated. This article clarifies and evaluates this objection, setting out a number of distinct concerns which emerge from the reasoning of the minority justices. Ultimately, the article argues that the objection has been too starkly cast and that Australia’s common law tradition does not present an insurmountable obstacle to the introduction of proportionality testing in constitutional review.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越普通法对结构比例性的反对
本文探讨了在澳大利亚宪法审查中采用结构化比例测试不适合澳大利亚普通法传统的说法。高等法院的一些成员和学者已经提出了这一反对意见,尽管反对意见的确切依据尚未明确阐明。本文澄清并评估了这一反对意见,提出了少数族裔法官推理中出现的一些不同的担忧。最终,文章认为,反对意见过于明显,澳大利亚的普通法传统并没有成为在宪法审查中引入相称性测试的不可逾越的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
No Place Like Home? Alienage, Popular Sovereignty and an Implied Freedom of Entry into Australia Under the Constitution Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia Foreign Interference and the Incremental Chilling of Free Speech Reviewing Review: Administrative Justice and the Immigration Assessment Authority Managing Ownership of Copyright in Research Publications to Increase the Public Benefits from Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1